ACIT, UDAIPUR V. M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd., UDAIPUR

ITA 487/JODH/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 48723314 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 26-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 06-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR DEEPAK SEHGAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K SAMPAT
• Section: 143(3); 194C; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.487/JU/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VS. M/S HINDUST AN ZINC LIMITED, CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR. YASHAD BHAWAN, UDAIPUR. (PAN: AAACH 7354 K). (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : DR. DEEPAK SEHGAL, CIT -DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K. SAMPAT DATE OF HEARING : 26.11.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.11.2013 ORDER PER HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), UDAIPUR DATED 02.0 6.2010 PASSED UNDER SECTION 250/143(3)/263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE AC T FOR SHORT). 2. THE SOLE ISSUE/GROUND INVOLVED IN THIS CASE READ S AS UNDER : WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE PRESENT CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN 1) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,77,79,577/- MADE U /S 40(A)(IA) OF THE I.T. ACT ON ACCOUNT OF NON DEDUCTION OF TDS. 2 ITA NO.487/JU/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 3. THE FACTS APROPOS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MINING. IT ALSO MANUFAC TURES AND SELLS ZINC, LEAD AND ITS OTHER BY-PRODUCTS. FOR A.Y. 2006-07 THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DULY ACCOMPANIED BY DULY AUDITED COPY OF ACC OUNT AND AUDIT REPORTS OBTAINED IN FORM NO.3CD AND 10CCB, ON 27.11.2006, D ECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.17,77,67,25,950/-. THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT UNDE R SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED ON 26.03.2008 AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS .18,20,28,21,226/-. THIS ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS REVISED UNDER SECTION 263 OF T HE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 24.02.2009 BY THE LD. CIT(ADMN), UDAIPUR. AS PER T HE DIRECTIONS OF THE CIT(ADMN), UDAIPUR, THE A.O. PASSED THE PRESENT ASS ESSMENT ORDER DATED 23.03.2009 IN WHICH AS OBSERVED BY LD. CIT(ADMN), D ISALLOWANCE OUT OF PAYMENTS MADE TO RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LIMIT ED (RRVPNL) OF RS.5,77,79,577/- WAS MADE AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE LD. CITS (ADMN.) AFORESAID ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT IS AS UNDER :- IN THIS CASE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) FOR THE A.Y. 20 06-07 WAS COMPLETED ON 26.03.2008 DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.18,20, 28,21,226/-. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IN THIS CASE A SPOT VERIFICATION OF TDS WAS CONDUCTED BY THE ITO(TDS), UDAIPUR ON 06.11.200 8 AS ITS CHENDERIYA ZINC SMELTERS, CHITTORGARH. DURING THE COURSE OF SPOT VERIFICATION IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD M ADE HUGE PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSMISSION CHARGES, SLDC CHARGES AND W HEELING CHARGES 3 ITA NO.487/JU/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 TO M/S RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD., JAIPUR (RRVPNL, JAIPUR) BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SO URCE ON SUCH PAYMENT, THEREFORE, THE SAME WAS LIABLE TO BE DISALLOWED U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT BUT THIS HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED AND CONSIDERED FOR D ISALLOWANCES BY THE AO WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT OF AY 2006-07 AN D THEREFORE, A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE FIXING THE CASE ON 12.02.2009. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, SHRI R.B. SINGH AGM (TAXATION) AND SHRI KAMLESH MALVIYA, AGM (FINANCE) ATTENDED AND FILED WRITTEN S UBMISSION THE CASE HAS BEEN DISCUSSED WITH THEM. THE REPLY OF THE ASSE SSEE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED CAREFULLY BUT IS NOT FOUND TENABLE FOR T HE REASONS DISCUSSED IN THE SUCCEEDING PARAS. THE CASES RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT RELEVANT AS THE FACT OF THE REFERRED CASES ARE DIFF ERENT FROM THE ASSESSEE'S CASE. FURTHER THE CASE OF M/S MALABAI INDUSTRIES CO . LTD. VS. CIT 243 ITR 83 RELIED BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN FAVOUR OF REVEN UE IN WHICH ORDER U/S 263 WAS HELD AS JUSTIFIED. DURING THE FY 2005-06, A PAYMENT OF RS.5,77,79,5777 - WAS MADE TO RRVPNL BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS PER AGREEMENT DAT ED 11.03.2005 ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH RRVPNL. THI S PAYMENTS OF TRANSMISSION CHARGES, SLDC CHARGES AND WHEELING C HARGES TO RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD., JAIPUR WERE MADE FOR TAKING SERVICES OF THIS COMPANY FOR TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRICITY THROUGH THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM OWNED OR OPERATED BY RRVPNL AS PER TERMS AND CONDITION MENTIONED IN THE AGREEMENT. SINCE THE SE RVICES PROVIDED BY RRVPNL ARE TECHNICAL IN NATURE, TAX SHOULD HAVE BEE N DEDUCTED AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194J OF THE ACT BUT THE ASSES SEE HAS FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON THE PAYMENT. THE SEC. 40 PROVIDES THAT NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY IN SECTIONS 30 TO 38 THE FOLLOWING AMOUNT SHALL NOT BE DEDUCTED IN COMPUTING THE INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD PRO FITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION (A) IN THE CASE OF ANY ASSESSEE (IA) ANY INTEREST, COMMISSION OR BROKERAGE, [RENT, ROYALTY] FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES OR FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICE S PAYABLE TO A RESIDENT, OR AMOUNTS PAYABLE TO A CONTRACTOR OR SUB-CONTRACTO R, BEING RESIDENT, FOR CARRYING OUT ANY WORK (INCLUDING SUPPLY OF LABO UR FOR CARRYING OUT ANY WORK), ON WHICH TAX IS DEDUCTIBLE AT SOURCE UND ER CHAPTER XVIIB AND 4 ITA NO.487/JU/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 SUCH TAX HAS NOT BEEN DEDUCTED OR, AFTER DEDUCTION [HAS NOT BEEN PAID,] ............ ' IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE PROVISION, TDS SHOULD HAVE BEE N MADE ON PAYMENT OF RS.5,77,79,577/- FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE. FURTHER FROM THE RECORD IT IS NOTICE D THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ITSELF HAS STARTED DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE ON THE PAYMENT OF TRANSMISSION CHARGES, SLDC CHARGES AND WHEELING CHA RGES TO RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD., JAIPUR FROM 01.04 .2008 ON WARDS WHICH SHOWS THAT TDS IS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED AS PER THE ACT AND AS PER ASSESSEE'S OWN STAND ALSO. SINCE THE PAYMENT OF RS.5,77,79,577/- MADE TO RRVPN L, JAIPUR ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSMISSION CHARGES, SLDC CHARGES AND W HEELING CHARGES IN F.Y. 2005-06 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2006-07 WAS LIABLE TO THE DISALLOWED U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO DEDUCT THE TAX AT SOURCE ON SUCH PAYMENT AND THIS ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINE D BY THE AO AND HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED FOR DISALLOWANCE UNDER THE ABOVE SECTION WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07 AND THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACT AND LEGAL POSITION THE ASSESSMENT OR DER PASSED BY THE AO IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS SET ASIDE AND RE STORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO AND HE IS DIRECTED TO PASS AN ORDER AS PE R PROVISIONS OF LAW. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE TH E LD. CIT(A) WHO FOUND THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER AND HENCE DELETED TH E IMPUGNED ADDITION BY FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNAL ORDER RENDERED IN THE CASE O F JAIPUR VAIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED VS. ITO IN ITA NO.127 TO 131/JP/2009 REPORT ED IN 123 TTJ (2008) 888 IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT TDS IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED EITHER UNDER SECTION 194C OR SECTION 194J OF THE ACT UNDER THE GIVEN FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE APPELLANT COMPANY ESTABLISHED CAPTIVE PO WER PLANT (CPP) IN THE YEAR 2004-05 FOR CONSUMPTION OF POWER AT THE CHANDERIYA UNIT AND ALSO DISTRIBUTION OF 5 ITA NO.487/JU/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 THE POWER TO ITS OTHER UNITS. THE POWER FROM THE G ENERATION POINT UPTO THE CONSUMPTION POINT IS TRANSMITTED THROUGH TRANSMISSI ON NET WORK AT RRVPNL. A SUM OF RS.5,77,79,577/- HAD BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESS EE COMPANY TO RPVPNL ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSMISSION CHARGES, STATE LOAD DISPATC H CENTRE (SLDC) CHARGES AND WHEELING CHARGES BUT NO TDS WAS MADE ON THESE PAYME NT AT ALL IN TERMS OF SECTION 194J OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE A.O. WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS BOUND TO DEDUCT TAX IN TERMS OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT ON THESE PAYMENTS. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT IN A.Y. 2008-09 THE ASSESSEE COM PANY ITSELF STARTED DEDUCTING TAX UNDER SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. 5. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS THAT THE ELE CTRIC POWER/ENERGY IS GENERATED, IS TRANSMITTED, IS SUPPLIED, IS DISTRIBU TED AND IS SOLD. THIS ELECTRIC POWER/ENERGY IS MOVEABLE PROPERTY AND THUS COMES UN DER THE DEFINITION OF GOODS AND/ARTICLES OR THINGS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, TRANSMISSION LINES OF THE RRVPNL WHICH ARE SOPHISTI CATED MACHINES AND EQUIPMENTS IN WHICH HUMAN ELEMENT IS NOT AT ALL INV OLVED AND THIS TRANSMISSION IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE PRODUCTION OF ELECTRICITY O F THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O. WAS NOT SATISFIED AND AFTER OBSERVING THAT WHEN THERE IS A FAILURE ON THE PART OF ANY ASSESSEE TO COMPLY WITH THE TDS PROVISIONS, BE IT UNDER SECT ION 194J OR 194C OF THE ACT, THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE IS LIABLE TO BE DISALLOWED. HE HAS OBSERVED THAT THE SERVICES 6 ITA NO.487/JU/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 PROVIDED BY THE RRVPNL ARE TECHNICAL IN NATURE, THE REFORE, TAX SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY UNDER SECTION 194J OF THE ACT. WITH REFERENCE TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE RRVPN L, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A.O. THAT TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRICITY ITSELF IS A T ECHNICAL SERVICE BECAUSE IT REQUIRES CONSTANT INVOLVEMENT OF TECHNICAL SYSTEM CONSISTING OF SOPHISTICATED INSTRUMENTS AND TECHNICAL ABILITY AND KNOWLEDGE TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN THE SYSTEM. AFTER DEFINING THE TECHNICAL SERVICES WITH REFERENCE TO V ARIOUS DECISIONS, THE A.O. FINALLY CONCLUDED THAT THE IMPUGNED CHARGES WERE SUBJECT TO TDS PROVISIONS AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ACT ACCORDINGLY, THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE OF RS.5,77,79,577/- IS DISALLOWABLE. 6. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) SIMILAR ARGUMENTS WERE MAD E AND THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER EXAMINING THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE ACT INCLUDI NG SECTION 194C AND 194J AND 40A(IA) OF THE ACT AND ALSO CBDT CIRCULAR NO.5 OF 2 005 DATED 15.07.2005 HAS COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BET WEEN MAKING AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY OR TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE TO OTHERS AND US ING TECHNICAL SYSTEM TO RENDER SERVICES TO OTHERS. HE HAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT RENDERING OF SERVICES BY RENDERING USE OF TECHNICAL SYSTEM IS DIFFERENT FROM CHARGING FEES FOR RENDERING TECHNICAL SERVICES. HE HAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194J OF THE ACT WOULD COME INTO PLAY ONLY WHEN BY MAKING PA YMENT OF FEES FOR TECHNICAL 7 ITA NO.487/JU/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 SERVICES, THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED CERTAIN SKILL/KNOWL EDGE/INTELLECT WHICH CAN BE FURTHER USED BY HIM FOR ITS OWN PURPOSE/RESEARCH. HE HAS FURTHER OPINED THAT THE FACILITIES PROVIDED BY USE OF MACHINES OR WHERE SOP HISTICATED EQUIPMENTS ARE INSTALLED AND OPERATED UPON WITH A VIEW TO EARN INC OME BY ALLOWING THE CUSTOMERS TO AVAIL OF THE BENEFIT BY THE USER OF SUCH EQUIPME NTS, THE SAME DOES NOT RESULT IN THE PROVISION OF TECHNICAL SERVICE TO THE CUSTOMER FOR A FEE. THEREFORE, AFTER FOLLOWING VARIOUS DECISIONS INCLUDING THAT OF THE J AIPUR BENCH OF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA), HE HAS DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDIT ION. 7. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL. BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE STUCK TO THEIR EARLIER STAND AND HAVE ADVANCED THEIR ARGUMENTS ON SIMILAR LINES AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED ABOVE. AT THE VERY OUTSET OF THE OPENING OF THE HE ARING OF THIS CASE, IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE IMPUGNED ISSUE STANDS COVERE D IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THIS VERY BENCH RENDERED IN THE CAS E OF THIS VERY ASSESSEE, DECIDED IN APPEALS OF THE REVENUE FOR A.YS.2006-07 TO 2009- 10 IN ITA NOS.488 TO 491/JODH/2010, ORDER DATED 30.08.2013 IN WHICH IDEN TICAL ISSUE WAS INVOLVED AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE SAME IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE JAIPUR BENCH OF APPELLATE TRIBUNALS (SUPRA) DECISION. IN THE FACTS OBTAINING IN THOSE ASSESSMENT YEARS AND OBTAINING IN A.Y. 2006-07 THER E IS NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL. IN THE ABOVE SAID ORDER DATED 30.08.2013, IT HAS BEEN HELD THUS :- 8 ITA NO.487/JU/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 11. THUS IT BECOMES AMPLY CLEAR THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194J WOULD HAVE APPLICATION ONLY WHEN THE TECHNOLOGY OR TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE OF A PERSON IS MADE AVAILABLE TO OTHERS A ND NOT WHERE BY USING TECHNICAL SYSTEMS, SERVICES ARE RENDERED TO O THERS. THE SERVICES PROVIDED THROUGH USE OF TECHNICAL SYSTEM IS NOT EQU IVALENT TO RENDERING OF TECHNICAL SERVICES THROUGH HUMANS. FOR APPLICAT ION OF SECTION 194J PAYMENT FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES WOULD RESULT IN ACQUIRING GOOD RESULT IN ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN RIGHT WHICH CAN BE FURTHE R USED FOR ITS OWN BENEFITS/USE/PURPOSE OR RESEARCH. THUS, IT BECOMES EVIDENT THAT WHERE A FACILITY IS PROVIDED THROUGH MACHINES OR THROUGH SO PHISTICATED EQUIPMENTS WHICH ARE MEANT FOR EARNING INCOME BY CU STOMERS TO AVAIL BENEFIT BY THEIR USER. IT WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO PROV IDING OF TECHNICAL SERVICES TO THE CUSTOMERS FOR A FEE. WE ARE IN AGR EEMENT WITH THE LD. CIT(A) WHEN HE MENTIONS IN PARA 2.2.8 THAT THE PRES ENT AGREEMENT OF TRANSMISSION OF SERVICES HAS BEEN INCORRECTLY CONCE IVED BY THE A.O. AND HAS MADE WRONG REASONS TO ARRIVE AT HIS CONCLUSION. THESE REASONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN EXTRACTED IN OUR EARLIER PART OF THE O RDER. THEREFORE, WE NEED NOT REPEAT THEM. 12. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT CLAUSES OF TH E AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE RRVPNL AND HAVE FOUND THAT THERE IS NO SUCH CLAUSE IN THE AGREEMENT WHICH PREVENTS RRVPNL TO ALLOW ANY OTHER POWER GENERATING COMPANY TO USE TRANSMITTING LINES. RATHER, IT IS NOTICED THAT IF ANY OTHER NEIGHBOURING ENTITY IN CH ANDERI WISHED TO USE OPEN ACCESS SYSTEM OF RRVPNL TO TRANSFER THE POWER TO ANOTHER ENTITY, IT COULD VERY WELL DO SO. CHARGES FOR SUCH UTILIZATIO N ARE GIVEN BY THE RAJASTHAN REGULATORY BODY AND NOT CONTROLLED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN ANY MANNER. TARRIFS ARE UNIFORM FOR EVERYONE USI NG THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DOES NOT HA VE ANY SAY IN THAT MATTER. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE ALSO OF THE OPINION TH AT THE A.O/ITO-TDS WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE PAYMENT OF TR ANSMISSION CHARGES, WHEELING CHARGES AND SLDC CHARGES WOULD ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194J OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, WE APPROVE THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT THE DEMANDS CREATED U/S 201( 1) OF THE ACT IN ALL THESE YEARS AND SO ALSO THE RELATED INTEREST CHARGE D U/S 201(1A) WOULD NOT SURVIVE AND HAVE BEEN CORRECTLY DELETED/CANCELL ED BY HIM. ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS ALL THE FOUR APPEALS OF THE REVENUE. 9 ITA NO.487/JU/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 8. THEREFORE, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING OUR OWN ORD ER AND THE ORDER OF JAIPUR BENCH OF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN THE CASE OF JAIPUR VAIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED VS. ITO IN ITA NO.127 TO 131/JP/2009 REPORT ED IN 123 TTJ (2008) 888, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS APPEAL OF THE REVE NUE. THEREFORE, WE CONFIRM THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND HENCE CANNOT ALLOW TH IS APPEAL. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISM ISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29.11.2013) SD/- SD/- (N.K. SAINI) (HARI OM MARATHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 29 TH NOVEMBER, 2013 PBN/* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT (APPEALS) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R., ITAT, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME-TAX APPELLATE T RIBUNAL, JODHPUR